MRI-Visualized T2 Hyperintense Breast Lesions: Identifying Clinical and Imaging Factors Linked to Malignant Biopsy Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose To determine the malignancy rate for MRI-guided breast biopsies performed for T2 hyperintense breast lesions and to assess additional clinical and MRI characteristics that can predict benign and malignant outcomes. Methods A retrospective chart review of consecutive MRI-guided breast biopsies performed in two tertiary hospitals was conducted over two years. Biopsies performed for T2 hyperintense lesions were selected, and further lesion imaging characteristics and patient risk factors were collected. Univariate and multivariate modeling regression was used to determine additional imaging and patient factors associated with malignant outcomes for biopsies of T2 hyperintense lesions. Results Out of 369 MRI-guided breast biopsies, 100 (27%) were performed for T2 hyperintense lesions. Two biopsy-proven benign lesions were excluded as the patient was lost on follow-up. With a study cohort of 98 lesions, the final pathology results were benign for 80 (80%) of these lesions, while 18 (18%) were malignant. Using multivariate logistic modeling, patient age > 50 (OR 5.99 (1.49,24.08 95%CI), p < 0.05) and lesion size > 3cm (OR 5.54 (1.54–18.7), p < 0.01) were found to be important predictors of malignant outcomes for MRI biopsies performed for T2 hyperintense lesions. Conclusion Our study observed a high malignancy rate, challenging the assumption that T2 hyperintensity can be considered a benign imaging characteristic for otherwise suspicious MRI-detected lesions. Decision-making regarding tissue sampling should be made based on a thorough evaluation of more reliable additional demographic and imaging factors, including patient age and lesion size.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".